Make Tree:tag protected instead of internal

[MFlisar]

In a custom tree it may make sense to adjust tags with tree specific data. In timber v4 this was easily possible, not in v5 it isn't anymore.

Is this project still active? If so, please make Tree::tag at least protected so that sub classes can access, it does not make much sense to hide it from a derived class imho.. and this limits functionality of sub tree currently...

timber/timber/src/main/java/timber/log/Timber.kt

Line 25 in 9954d94

internal open val tag: String?

[YarikSOffice]

Facing the same issue, could not intercept the tag field to filter more stack trace elements

[inteist]

You do realize this is an open source project, right? And this is one trivial change. It would take less time to create a pull request than to type that original issue LOOL :)

[hannesa2]

You do realize this is an open source project, right? And this is one trivial change.

@inteist
I guess people don't make even simple pull requests, when they are never merged.
At least for me it's valid

[MFlisar]

You do realize this is an open source project, right? And this is one trivial change. It would take less time to create a pull request than to type that original issue LOOL :)

You are responding to a 2 year old question... The PR is not the problem, but as @hannesa2 said, Jack Wharten is not accepting pull requests and he states that he thinks his library is feature complete - just check the open PRs, they are unresponded and open for 6-7 years now... So I would say the correct way is to ask and then make a PR...

BTW, I've written my own implementation and do support optional timber support in my library so I don't need an update anymore.

Maybe it makes you happy that I close this issue, LOOL :), to say it with your words..

Side Note:
A PR for this issue did exist for 1 year now without any effect...